Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 TruelyReadyforLove
Joined: 2/23/2011
Msg: 624
would you marry for money?Page 11 of 43    (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
No, I would not marry for money. A matter of fact. I had the oppertunity to do just that.
 cin____dy
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 625
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/20/2011 9:22:15 PM
No, never ever. I know people find that hard to believe, but I have turned down many chances to be in a great financial siuation through a man. I would never give up on the amazing way it feels to be with someone that you are attracted to care about and love. I could not ever fake that.
I can back this up how I have lived my life and how I have handled going through a divorce.
You only live once and nothing is better than the feelings of peace and love. I know many extremely wealthy people, it doesn't buy it, you can never find it and know inner happiness without truth.
 Natgoat
Joined: 3/24/2011
Msg: 626
Would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/20/2011 9:34:03 PM
'cin____...' . . Can we talk..??
Don't let the 'Distance' get in the way of a ...conversation...

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 627
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/20/2011 10:01:53 PM
Ivanoso, I sincerely don't mean to pick on you, but... your naviete is showing! First of all, it's "couldn't care less", not "could care less". More importantly, I think you SHOULD care, a lot! A golddigger is defined as someone, a woman primarily, whose interest in a man is purely financial. The traditional roles of women & men in society are not unimportant, as they are vestiges of a long held notion of societal roles. As we have not completely obliterated those roles as of yet, the difficulty of mantaining a relationship that is satisfactory to both genders has increased. I am not convinced either way, as to the roles themselves but I am convinced that the resulting confusion has added a hardship to the relationship "game" . Time to change the rules, or time to change the game? That is an individual decision, as far as I can see, but the failure to recognize the changes that have taken (and are taking) place is detrimental to the individual, either way. In short, wake up & smell the coffee!
 VirtuallyLove
Joined: 9/8/2011
Msg: 628
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 8:03:24 AM

CO: Just because men place less importance on women being employed or stable, than women do men...doesn't equate to women being "gold-diggers".

Why don't men expect more of women? I think they are foolish if they go after the "unstable" women. To explain why this isn't the brightest idea...go read any thread on here about divorce, pre-nups, money, first-meet coffees....all the whining and complaining that goes there. When the fact of the matter is...men knowingly choose these unemployed/underemployed unstable women...then complain about it after the fact.


I agree. It's illogical for a man to claim in effect: "Gee, I don't have that particular standard, so you shouldn't either!" when complaining about women wanting a guy with a decent job, car, house, whatever. True, it would be rather hypocritical for a woman to judge a man harshly for not having a good income, etc., when she herself lacks one. But even in that case, she would have every right to want a dude with a good income (it would be the judging of them negatively that would be hypocritical, not the desire itself).

 peppermint petunias
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 629
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 8:34:04 AM

Person you have no attraction to wants to marry you. They are not ugly, but they are not in any way attractive to you. There is moderate emotional, mental chemistry. No romantic factor other than polite conversation. They show you a brokerage account and legal forms that proves they have these assets. They have 10 million dollars. Would you marry them?
and oh ps...
nothing goes in your name. If you walk out, you walk out with what you came in with.
would you marry them?


If he is fun and witty........Hell yes.

That is 10 million in cash available correct?
Not property and bonds.

I'll take 2 years as long as he is VERY generous and skilled.



Love can wait 24 months..Hell... Who knows if he is that fun and skilled I would probably fall in love anyway.

What a question.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 630
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 9:03:14 AM

Person you have no attraction to wants to marry you. They are not ugly, but they are not in any way attractive to you. There is moderate emotional, mental chemistry. No romantic factor other than polite conversation.


Nope. Not interested.


They show you a brokerage account and legal forms that proves they have these assets. They have 10 million dollars. Would you marry them?


How crass and insulting---I'm not for sale, and find the idea of a man I'm not physically attracted to attempting to buy my affection to be highly repugnant. In fact, I've had it happen to me a couple of times, and my answer was NO WAY.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 631
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 9:54:44 AM

They need us as much as we need them. I dont know where you get they need as the least rigth now

Well, when I read these threads, it seems to me that men are indeed shooting themselves in the foot. Now, personally, I like men .. I think there's a certain biological imperative there, and I imagine it works the same way for men towards women.

But logically, do I see men as really *necessary* to my life? Not so much. I can work and support myself, and judging by the number of men who are so concerned about pre-nups, protecting assets, only paying for their own coffee and opening their own doors, I'm glad I have the ability to be self-supporting and self-sufficient. In my ideal world, my 'man' and I would combine our resources, financial and emotional, and create a better life for both of us - we'd be partners in life. But I can have a good life without any support from a man.

If I wanted a child I need only find a sperm donor, or a sperm bank if I was unable to find a willing donor. Again, in my ideal world the father would want to be involved, and it would certainly be best for the child, but given that many men voluntarily remove themselves from the child-raising scenario, it's apparent that relying on men to be fathers is a risky proposition. If you don't believe me, go look at a few threads that talk about how a man shouldn't be responsible for his non-bio kids - even if he raised them from infancy, and also shouldn't be responsible for bio-kids that he didn't explicitly consent to allow the woman to bear. Also, look at the stats about single-parent families - most are headed by women. Men will claim that it's because the "system" is biased toward women, but I think the bigger cause is that men walk away. In my extended family, for example, I've seen 4 men voluntarily walk away from their children - even though the moms wanted and encouraged the father's support and involvement, regardless of their financial contribution. I've seen one mother do the same thing. In many of my single-parent friends, I've seen the same behavior. In my experience, it's a rare man who voluntarily steps up to his child-support obligations and child-visitation rights.

Women are lucky in that they can seek emotional support from other women, it needn't come from men. For the most part, men do not have that luxury - they might have "buddies", but for a lot of men, emotional intimacy comes from the woman in their life. And a lot of studies show that single women are actually happier and more content than single men, especially as we mature.

So, I can certainly see where VL is coming from: men are not as necessary to women as they think they should be, and if they don't capitilize on what women do see as their male strengths, they may find themselves becoming less and less relevant.

On the other hand, our biologically-programmed mutual attraction is going to be pretty hard to resist, so men probably have little to worry about for the next few generations, at least.

(And yes, maybe logically men need women as little as women need men; I'm only addressing from one woman's POV here).
 theforumfiend
Joined: 10/21/2007
Msg: 632
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 11:46:02 AM

Most girls are goldigger or whatever you call them. Some just to a greater extent. I could care less what car a girl drives. What her career is. How much she makes or if she has a stable job. Or what house they live in. There are a few that dont care about that but very few.


Sure you could care less about what car she drives, but what about how she looks? Looks are for men what security is for women. Not everyone is in to it for security and/or looks, but face it kiddo most are.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 633
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 11:58:45 AM
10 million?

I have to be honest and say if they werent a total scrouge mcduck I'd probably consider it quite seriously and quite possibly would even without having a payout for services rendered for a year or two at least

After all, we tend to regret the things we havent done on our deathbeds far more than the things we did. And hell, living a jet set lifestyle for a few years with no major downside? Sounds like a once in a lifetime experience really
 nicurn1971
Joined: 10/13/2011
Msg: 634
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 1:02:23 PM
No way! I would rather be insanely happy with a man with average income than be with a man I wasn't crazy about, no matter what the bank account.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 635
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 1:52:11 PM
Well there was some consternation among a bunch of people. Hahaha!!

Now if you look back at what I wrote, after you get your blood presssure in order, I never said ONCE, women were gold diggers! I did alledge, that money plays a role, a lot bigger role, than this thread alluded too.

The premise of the OP, is sooo far fetched that it makes you laugh. It also narrows it exactly to "gold diggers". I mean seriously, who would marry a person, you weren't attracted to in some way, would have 2 years to live "the life" of the a rich person, and couldn't take a dime upon leaving?

As for stable man, which seems to stick in sooo many throats. It is a known fact, men rarely look at what women do for a living, women ALWAYS do. Now I'm sure this will be met with more controversy and distain, but it's a fact.

Now we can suppose that means men are shallow and only go by looks. Or we could suppose most men care less about what she does and more about who she is. A mixture I would think with a number solely based on looks, the other based on who the woman is.

"just to post some nasty stuff about women."

No not at all, you read into that, what you wanted. I didn't say anything nasty, just what I observed. Funny, there are a number of women, who have as an interest travel, they even post pictures of themselves in exotic places they have gone. Now others post pics in the local gin joint, not so much travel in that case is there? BUT they are interested in travel! Hahahaha!!

I even listed an omage to the dead beat guy, that some women end up supporting.

Again for those who just wish to dwell on the negative, my point is "would you marry for money?" is a far cry from the scenario the OP put in his essay. It gives the illusion that in a specific scenario, it gives a whole number of folks the ability to say NO! But is a far cry from the actual truth of what their answer would be in a more genral discussion of "would you marry for money?"

That all of you take offense to the way I responded, has more to do with the fact that you don't like the facts I pointed out.

When we discuss the "stable man", again it seems to trigger, a viseral reaction(guilt maybe?)to the pure fact that money is an important feature to those women. I never said anything about paying their bills, or what that has to do with things. YOUR OWN MINDS went there, all by yourselves.

It's great to cause controversy, it may make some people actually think!
 Cynderella
Joined: 3/8/2007
Msg: 636
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 1:56:43 PM
No for Money...Yes for Love!

If two identical twins stood in front of me everything the same but money (one) spark (other)...

Spark would win...Love is truly what makes us rich.

Now if you need a shopping partner...I'm in. Tee hee
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 637
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 2:18:35 PM
I think even many people who know they would without a shadow of a doubt marry for money arent really going to advertise that to ANYONE, let alone on a dating site where someone who is rich might look at their profile are they?

And lets face it. Terms like "good work ethic, driven, successful, financially independant" and others really do tend to boil down to what someones income is, or is likely to be as it does when some people specify a potential partner must have a degree

Its kind of funny when you do have a parent with teenagers who has never worked who lists those things as being "important" then also says "its not the money thats important" yeah right lol

I also wonder how many people who profess to only want to marry for "love" would ever under any circumstances "risk" spending enough time with someone unemployed to fall in love, or would even consider someone unemployed as a viable potential partner to begin with

Far fewer than would try and claim they would I bet.

Dont get me wrong, I do think that money not only IS important, but also that it SHOULD be important to some extent. But it does get tedious repeatedly seeing people trying to do cognitive gymnastics to try and specify things that are going to be pretty inseperable from someones income whilst also leaving themselves the wiggle room to try and claim that money isnt important to them right from who pays and how someone pays on the first date through to whether they share the same thoughts on what is and isnt a waste of money
 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 638
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 2:25:22 PM
What would be the point ?
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 639
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 2:30:54 PM

I also wonder how many people who profess to only want to marry for "love" would ever under any circumstances "risk" spending enough time with someone unemployed to fall in love, or would even consider someone unemployed as a viable potential partner to begin with

I did. When I met my BF he was at the end of his savings, and he is now on gov't disability due to work-related back injury. I don't make a hell of a lot of money, but I'm willing to share what I have with him. He gives back what I need in other ways. During the time I was single, I dated plenty of guys, some of whom were much better off than I was and some who were about the same. I also dated guys who were much worse off financially. But this one and I clicked, and that's what was and is most important to me.

it does get tedious repeatedly seeing people trying to do cognitive gymnastics

Yeah, I know what you mean, though for me it's the way in which some men try to make women as a gender out to be gold-digging, manipulative liars.
 VirtuallyLove
Joined: 9/8/2011
Msg: 640
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 2:31:18 PM
TO 4 x 4:

Nice reflections as usual, 4. I particularly like your assurance that we have at least a few more generations of biologically programmed attachment to each other.

I'm certainly not suggesting that women don't like - maybe even need emotionally in some primitive sense - men. But as you acknowledged, the utilitarian "need" part of the equation - women needing men to protect them, capture food for them, etc. - has been diminished if not entirely eliminated. True, there still is a utilitarian aspect to having someone around who's physically stronger than you - that can definitely be convenient (which is why I've decided I want to marry a woman bodybuilder ) - but it is now more about convenience and appeal than need.

Now men, on the other hand, relied on women primarily for emotional support and child-bearing/caring. Yes, primitive woman certainly helped a lot with chores, but men were quite capable of doing those chores as well, so I'm still thinking it was mostly emotional support and procreation.

Today, in this dog-eat-dog high-pressured world, men need women - their emotional support - now more than ever. But women no longer need men for all the things they once did. Quite often they're out on their own hunts these days. So more and more frequently, I'm thinking, the man returns home from the hunt and doesn't find his woman tending the fire and ready to hear about his hunt or clean his "game" or whatever other analogies I can torture that have to do with offering him her support. She's either off on her own hunt or too tired from it to do those things. So I think there's something of an imbalance here when compared to the even not-so-distant past.

I think some, perhaps many, women sense this and are somewhat concerned with losing our former and specially powered male and female connection. I don't think it's because they want to be dominated or whatever, but rather they want to hold on to a simpler, more elemental romantic equation.

I'm not sure how well that's going to work, or what the future holds. I do worry that the male-female bipolarity may diminish over time. But whatever happens, I suspect we'll find a way to muddle through.
 peppermint petunias
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 641
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 3:04:54 PM

nothing goes in your name. If you walk out, you walk out with what you came in with.


If I come in with only my azz..................... I walk out with it higher

He can't take back my azz lift now can he?


 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 642
view profile
History
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 3:08:51 PM

If I come in with only my azz..................... I walk out with it higher




He can't take back my azz lift now can he?

There was a story a couple of years back about a man who wanted the kidney (or some internal organ) he'd donated to her returned when his wife divorced him. So ... ya never know.
 Fab52
Joined: 12/14/2010
Msg: 643
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 3:32:05 PM
As "Dear Abby" once advised:

Never marry for money, you can borrow it cheaper! Ha!
 DudeistPriest
Joined: 3/30/2009
Msg: 644
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 5:46:41 PM
Yep, sur would. IF, both parties knew it was just a business arrangement. I would also stipulate that I would recieve a generous monthly stipend and severance package.
 4everRadiant
Joined: 1/16/2011
Msg: 645
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 8:42:28 PM
No, I would not
marry for money.

Pure, and simple.
 pretzelman60
Joined: 9/27/2011
Msg: 646
would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/21/2011 11:26:58 PM
hell yes, I'd marry for money! I've tried the love bit and it sucks. Love is a bubble that starts in your head and bursts when it hits your ass. Yes, I'd marry for money. At least money is tangible! You can see it. You can feel it. Love is a farce.


JMO
 Natgoat
Joined: 3/24/2011
Msg: 647
Would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/22/2011 4:32:58 PM
Money is Third or Fourth on the list...

L O V E is what makes a marriage work....anything less is just a
Business Arrangement..!!
 kailania
Joined: 4/10/2008
Msg: 648
Would you marry for money?
Posted: 10/22/2011 4:36:32 PM
i have had a few chances to marry for money. last year a lot of money.
but as i got to know the man....yuck...i couldnt image kissing him.
so no thankyou.
lets marry for love and companionship and win the lottery together.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >